- Neither Not at All Nor Completely
- When Wiki Gets Wonky, It Quickly Turns Wrong Key
- A Consistence Movement [First Essay]
- Zen and the Art of Giga Om
- People don’t listen, they just wait for their turn to talk
- The Greatest Retard Media Hoax is Publicity
- Responsibility to Life
- Wisdom of the Language — Nooblogs Essay
- Language is a Communications Technology, not some SEO Tactic
- 50 Pages of Google
- Subjectivity + Rationality
- The Quintessential Human Superpower: Universal Law
- Engagement is Beautiful
- People as Content: Virtual Content vs. “In Real Life” (IRL) Content
- Is the way people are just the way they are, rather than being “wrong”?
- Topics as Locations: Physical Location vs. Virtual Location
- Money Doesn’t Make Us Happy
- In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act
- The Theory of Handles and Relationships
- Loving Heartstrings: The Search for Meaning is a Quest for Love
- Regarding Random Rituals, Recognition, Response, Resolution and Revolution
- It’s always me that ends up getting wet
- Your Money or Your Life
- Why Retard Media Don’t Scale
- Communication, Being a Communal Activity, is Community-Oriented — Is to Share an Act of Communism?
- Live to Make “Love Life” Stories
- Natural Technology
- The Future of Advertising is Extinction
- The State of Retard Media
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
Today, I had an “Epic Fail” experience. 😐
There were a couple of things that came together in an unfortunate way, and before I knew it, I had created a train wreck like there’s no tomorrow. I’ve tried to figure out what happened, what went wrong, and also to explain the basic problem so perhaps you can be spared of the same kind of bad scene unraveling right before your eyes should you find yourself in a similar situation — which you probably won’t (but maybe “better safe than sorry”).
The reason why something like this probably won’t happen to you boils down to this: You are not me. Today I think I’ve learned something about myself — and in particular: something I want to try to change. Over the years, I have acquired a habit — in many cases, it can be quite useful… but in some cases it can lead to disastrous results. Simply: The habit is to make guesstimates and to go with the hunches rather than to wait to get more reliable information (a phrase that captures the spirit of such ball-park winging it is “the perfect is the enemy of the good”).
Now I understand that no one can ever be 100% certain of anything — that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about being 50% or 60% or maybe 70% certain, versus being 95% or perhaps even 99% certain. In many cases, being just pretty certain (as in: just a little bit certain) is good enough — but there are some cases where it should never suffice.
One such case is when talking with close personal friends about very private, personal matters. In such situations, you should never make strong, declarative statements based on little more than a hunch. This is not simply a matter of being polite — this is not about prefacing your remarks with “I think” or “I feel” — this is about formulating an expression that will help the person you care about… or not. If you are only 60% certain, then maybe it’s better if you just keep your mouth shut. If the matter is very important, maybe only open your mouth if you are 99% sure that it’s right and you are 99% sure that it will help.
Faster is not always better. Sometimes a ball-park estimate is not good enough. And sometimes a mistake is simply inexcusable… and that is quite probably quite often the case if the issue has to do with sensitive issues.
I discovered several things today, each of which surprised me a little. Taken together, they surprised me a lot. Let me explain.
What started me down this path was considering how people want to make or create or build or maybe even simply buy things. People are often very goal oriented — along the lines of: “I will do this, this will result in that, that is good, I want that, if I have that, I will be happy, so I will do this to get that.” In part, we have been trained to think this way in order to function as consumers and producers of things… things that can be traded in the market economy. Objects — whether virtual or real. Often, our reality revolves around a sort of fetish… to procure objects. Whether a product or a service, we are all too easily overly focused on the procurement of objects… to the detriment of being happy, satisfied, in harmony with society or nature.
For example: A consumer may wish to procure a widget; A business may wish to sell widgets; and neither may think much about the relationships involved in this transaction, or what role such a widget will perform in the future. If the widget gets “used up”, does it then somehow magically become trash?
It’s quite easy to see that this is also somewhat of a philosophical question: Insofar as objects, relationships and such exist, it might not a very big leap to think about their existence and from that to develop some sort of existentialism… — but that would actually be a short-cut and would miss a very important point: Each of these things exist not only in and for themselves. They exist in an environment, they are each parts of the same universe, and in that respect they are also related. They do not really exist separately as much as they consist together. Indeed: Consistence coordinates many previous philosophical points of view (such as existentialism and also interdependence, relativism and environmentalism, sustainability and change, atomism and universalism, … and many more).
Consistence thrives on complexity, and there seem to be many parallels between this way of thinking with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Just as the roof of a building may be carried by many pillars, so too do life forms continue to consist even if one of the pillars of life crumble, break or fall.
This is a significant difference between the “consistence” and “consistency” — whereas consistency seems to be about the homogeneous constitution of a specific mass, consistence is more about the stratification of different parts across a larger whole, be that a community, a culture, a regional or global population, or across time and space in general.
Literally, consistence means “standing strong together”. This does not mean that the individual parts are the same. On the contrary: They may be very different, complementing each other, sticking together much in the same way that opposites attract.
Consistence does not build so much on promoting individual strengths as it succeeds by minimizing vulnerability to weaknesses. You might be reminded of the quote by Nietzsche which states: “What doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger”. In this way, an infection, a virus or similar disease may be seen as promoting consistence.
Since the contexts of consistence are so wide and far-reaching, it is difficult to summarize this philosophy in one brief essay. We should revisit this approach many times, from different angles, and keep testing the usefulness of this concept time and time again.
Wikipedia maintains a list of book publishers (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English-language_book_publishing_companies). The Wikipedia article on “Publishing” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishing) also primarily deals with literature published in the form of “ink on paper” printed books (and newspapers, etc.).
I wonder: Is there a graphic showing the number of (print) publishers worldwide over the past 5 centuries? If there is, my hunch is that the number is significantly less than the number of books. Wikipedia states that globally, approximately 2.2 million books are published per year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_published_per_country_per_year). Wikipedia’s “Publishing” page notes that
Approximately 60% of English-language books are produced through the “Big Five” publishing houses.
I think it is safe to assume that the number of “print” / “paper” publishers has already peaked — and that their number is currently perhaps somewhere in the low thousands. The precise number may be difficult to nail down, because there may be “copy shops” or desktop publishers that publish things that look and function something like books, newspapers, magazines, “zines” or something like that on almost any corner of the globe.
In contrast: I just checked ntldstats.com, and the site currently states that there are currently 4,895,464 domains registered in 584 top-level domains (TLDs) … and neither of these statistics seems to be anywhere near to reaching a peak.
In sum: Over history, there have been many millennia with very few or even no publishers at all, about five hundred years in which the number of publishers rose from a few dozen to a few thousand, and about twenty years in which the number of publishers has risen from a few thousand to a few million … with little or no sign of slower growth rates on the horizon.
I read this line, and it was attributed to someone named Chuck Palahniuk. I could not find any information actually connecting this quote to Chuck Palahniuk — besides many other people basically doing a “copy” and “paste” of this same quote with this same attribution. Since I don’t know who actually said it — since I cannot find a link to Chuck Palahniuk as the source of this quote, I will simply listen to the words and then tell you what I think about them.
I find the quote very interesting.
Here is my take on it:
As good parents, people teach their children to ignore advertisements. As good workers, they pay to promote and advertise attention towards increasing business activity.